How Dysfunction Helps The GOP

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Yeah right, either we get shitty republican legislation when republicans are in power or we have democrats who have to 'compromise' with republicans. If it weren't for the GOP, we'd have a much better country.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

What's ignorant,exacty? European politics are often described as having their 'right and left' be like our 'center-left' and 'left' wings of Democrats here, without any strong party correspondign to our Republicans, who would correlate to a small 'radical right' in the European political system. The standard of living in Western Europe - especially when the safty net is an issue - has a lot of good things about it (though comparing them involves what you choose to measure); and western Europeans seem pretty happy generally.

Actually, it might be the more ignorant statement for you to disagree. The Republicans have been such a disaster for this country that it's only the ideology that you just can't say they're that bad that may prevent you from saying they're that bad. Democrats have repeatedly made things bette for the middle class and the poor, while the rich as always since the French Revolution do just fine. Republicans at best tread water and uusually find ways to slide back towards increased concentration of wealth and worse.

Seriously, write our 5 or 10 things you think make a 'good result' for government in yoiur own view, and then map the last century for each by the party of the president.

Democrats have ledt every fight for removing discrimination, they've led the fights for average American's prsperity and labor rights, for consumer protections (safety, accurate information), for the regulations of the financial sectory to prevent corruption and the crashes that result from laissez-faire greed (Clinton with Repulbicans excepted), and much more. Over a century, every econmic indicator from stocks rising to loower unemployment to growth and more consistently do better under Democrats than under Republicans.

Under Republicans, the top 0.01% especially, but the top 1%, do well, relatively speaking, at the cost of the nation. They're consistently fighting against public healthcare, public retirement systems (from the moment it was introduced to it being Bush's #1 domestic prioirity to try to privatize SS), and countless other programs that help the public - while for the last quarter century leading the skyrocketing of the growth of public debt, not even scoring that one issue they should easily be able to claim, leaving Democrats as the party who both does more AND is more fiscally responsible. Republicans have given us our most unnecessary wars (with the exception of Vietnam before Nixon expanded the war, which had the full support of Republicans and which JFK had blocked), our biggest scandals from Watergate to the illegal funding of a terrorist army in Nicaragua, by laundering money from illegal missile sales to Iran, and lies about all of it, to the massive corruption of the Bush administration both legal and illegal, with our nation adopting the 'pre-emptive war' doctrine and defending torture and illegal wiretapping, establishing the precedent or the US performing 'covert operatons' for greed making us the eemy of democracy, starting with Iran in 1953 but containing many activities of overthrow, assassination, and terrorism after, and much more.

No, the "ignorance" is the refusal to deal with the facts, not to blindly insist on the ideology that the parties are about equally good and bad.

Our nation became far greater under the more liberal leadership period 1933-1968; who knows how great it might have been with more strong liberlal leadership 1981-present, instead of the disasters of Watergate, of Reagan's terrorism and anti-labor policies starting the first period I'm awareof in US history when the bottom 80% get aboutnone of the economy's growth after inflation while skyrocketing the debt, the decades of stagnation on social programs and rollbacks of what works replacing it with corrupt spending.

Now that they have run the nation in to the ground again, the Democrats get to rebuild the country again - after some years to heal, maybe they can do great things again.

Like on the nation simply caring for the health of the citizens - not in the most overpriced (not just most expensive, most overpriced) system in the world, as good as it admittedly is for those who can pay for the high costs -but with universal healthcare. Party records? After FDR dealt with the Great Depression and created public healthcare programs, Trums first push universal healthcare. Kennedy and LBJ greatly expanded care, while Reagan fough Kennedy as the national spokesman against Medicare. Clinton made UHC a priority but Republicans and the pricvate industry got the public to oppose it; and now we're likely after 8 years of nothing from Bush to have Democrats, by having both branches, finally pass a form of UHC.

But I guess your version is that both parties are equally deserving of credit for UHC?

 

[BoberFett]

Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Thanks for proving it can be done in fewer words.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

I hate to agree with something like this as it seems quite hackish (insert *.txt snark here), but it is overly simplistic. Europe fails too, just in different areas. There is more than enough of that to go around these days. I for one would like to see the Republican party completely fall apart, but I sure as hell wouldn't want the Dems to be running the show all by themselves.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Craig234
...Democrats have ledt every fight for removing discrimination, they've led the fights for average American's prsperity and labor rights, for consumer protections (safety, accurate information), for the regulations of the financial sectory to prevent corruption and the crashes that result from laissez-faire greed (Clinton with Repulbicans excepted), and much more. Over a century, every econmic indicator from stocks rising to loower unemployment to growth and more consistently do better under Democrats than under Republicans...

To give the Republicans their due, you have to acknowledge the last great Republican president; Theodore Roosevelt did at least as much as any 20th century president to fight the concentration of wealth and aid the rise of the American middle class.

Mr. Roosevelt would, of course, be as much an outsider in today's Republican Party as he was in that of his own time.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Yeah right, either we get shitty republican legislation when republicans are in power or we have democrats who have to 'compromise' with republicans. If it weren't for the GOP, we'd have a much better country.

I'd laugh at that stupidity if I knew you didnt actually believe it. In this case I weep somebody is so fucking dumb to believe such a thing.

Europe, where their middle class have homes smaller than our poor, cant afford to drive a car bigger than a mailbox, and pay more for items we take for granted. Nice place to visit, wouldnt want to live there unless I was loaded.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Craig234
...Democrats have ledt every fight for removing discrimination, they've led the fights for average American's prsperity and labor rights, for consumer protections (safety, accurate information), for the regulations of the financial sectory to prevent corruption and the crashes that result from laissez-faire greed (Clinton with Repulbicans excepted), and much more. Over a century, every econmic indicator from stocks rising to loower unemployment to growth and more consistently do better under Democrats than under Republicans...

To give the Republicans their due, you have to acknowledge the last great Republican president; Theodore Roosevelt did at least as much as any 20th century president to fight the concentration of wealth and aid the rise of the American middle class.

Mr. Roosevelt would, of course, be as much an outsider in today's Republican Party as he was in that of his own time.

I do agree that Roosevelt - the accidental President by assassination initially - deserves a lot of credit for some bold leadership in areas including some advocacy for the welfare of the average Americans against the very wealthy, agianst extremes of inequality and concentration of wealth and power, his willingness to support some progressive issues.

Ironically, though, it wans't long before the party showed their true stripes - Roosevelt's hand-picked successor, Taft, greatly disappointed Roosevelt by supporting big business and abandoning the progressive policies, to the point that Roosevelt determined to run again and replace him; but the Republican party chose Taft over Roosevelt, leading Roosevelt to run as a third-party candidate (Bull Moose) which split the Republican vote enough to allow Woodrow Wilson to win.

As for 'as much as any 20th century president', I wouldn't go that far - oftentimes, progress is relative over time, which is why a man who wanted to send all the blacks in America back to Africa, or to gradually phase out slavery over 40 years, a man who said he was completely opposed to the social equality of blacks and whites, can now be called great for his leadership for black rights (Lincoln), because relatively speaking, he was a leader in the right direction.

Similarly, American moved in a more liberal direction in the 20th century such that the 'average' or even 'right' position late in the century was far different than the situation early in the century. Once it was radical to support the creation of soecial security, later it was radical to support its not existing. So Roosevelt was President as the tail end of the gilded age when Americans averaged $10,000 a year income (adjusted for inflation), and lacked many child labor laws, the right to forum unions, a minimum wage, etc.

It's pretty apples and oranges to compare his positions in that early era with the policies of presidents in a very different nation later. But I give him credit for relative progress.

I view him as behind FDR and JFK/LBJ though on an 'absolute' scale, and really, on a relative scale as well - still leaving him one of the top.

FYI, he also shared with other top progressive presidents (we could say of the century, but it's not like the 19th century had much to brag about) an early symbolic act supporting blacks, when he invited a leading black man to visit him in the White House, which choscked and ouraged most of the still-very racist nation. It was probably the last symbolic act with that visibility until Truman integreated the armed forces 40 years later - though FDR did make a special effort to avoid Congress' opposition and get a black on the federal court, by using his recess appointment power (for a moral purpose, in contrast to the way Bush abused it later to get bad judges on the court).

So, your point is well-taken, but of course does not represent any general point about the Republican party, and suggests the old saw, "the exception that proves the rule."

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Craig234
...Democrats have ledt every fight for removing discrimination, they've led the fights for average American's prsperity and labor rights, for consumer protections (safety, accurate information), for the regulations of the financial sectory to prevent corruption and the crashes that result from laissez-faire greed (Clinton with Repulbicans excepted), and much more. Over a century, every econmic indicator from stocks rising to loower unemployment to growth and more consistently do better under Democrats than under Republicans...

To give the Republicans their due, you have to acknowledge the last great Republican president; Theodore Roosevelt did at least as much as any 20th century president to fight the concentration of wealth and aid the rise of the American middle class.

Mr. Roosevelt would, of course, be as much an outsider in today's Republican Party as he was in that of his own time.

for Teddy the last true "Maverick" to put the country first and party second. :heart:

 

[MikeMike]

still waiting... tick tick tick

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Yeah right, either we get shitty republican legislation when republicans are in power or we have democrats who have to 'compromise' with republicans. If it weren't for the GOP, we'd have a much better country.

I'd laugh at that stupidity if I knew you didnt actually believe it. In this case I weep somebody is so fucking dumb to believe such a thing.

Europe, where their middle class have homes smaller than our poor, cant afford to drive a car bigger than a mailbox, and pay more for items we take for granted. Nice place to visit, wouldnt want to live there unless I was loaded.

At least they don't die there because they aren't loaded in order to pay for their medical bills.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

why dont you try actually reading it.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Thanks for proving it can be done in fewer words.

And it looks like you one upped him for the crown there.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dali71

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Text

And here's a chart showing who controlled Congress during the same timeline:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od...l_party_division_2.htm

That chart's useless. Jpeyton apparently hasn't even figured out there is a Congress, or that it controls spending.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

I'm not a Republican, fuckstick.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

I'm not a Republican, fuckstick.

No one's a Republican anymore. Who wants to be on the sinking ship? What is the new term for Republican? Tea bagger? Libertarian? Independent?

Whatever the name for shit, it still stinks.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

I'm not a Republican, fuckstick.

No one's a Republican anymore. Who wants to be on the sinking ship? What is the new term for Republican? Tea bagger? Libertarian? Independent?

Whatever the name for shit, it still stinks.

I am proud to be a Republican. At the core of things I am all for a smaller national government, and solving things at a local level. I am absolutely a fiscal conservative. Its those pesky social values where I do not agree with the party.

I won't generalize and attack all those on the left if you don't generalize and attack those on the right.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Yeah right, either we get shitty republican legislation when republicans are in power or we have democrats who have to 'compromise' with republicans. If it weren't for the GOP, we'd have a much better country.

I'd laugh at that stupidity if I knew you didnt actually believe it. In this case I weep somebody is so fucking dumb to believe such a thing.

Europe, where their middle class have homes smaller than our poor, cant afford to drive a car bigger than a mailbox, and pay more for items we take for granted. Nice place to visit, wouldnt want to live there unless I was loaded.

At least they don't die there because they aren't loaded in order to pay for their medical bills.

There are many many stories about people dying waiting for treatment in Europe. Go look at Britains cancer survival rate compare to the United States.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

I'm not a Republican, fuckstick.

No one's a Republican anymore. Who wants to be on the sinking ship? What is the new term for Republican? Tea bagger? Libertarian? Independent?

Whatever the name for shit, it still stinks.

I am proud to be a Republican. At the core of things I am all for a smaller national government, and solving things at a local level. I am absolutely a fiscal conservative. Its those pesky social values where I do not agree with the party.

I won't generalize and attack all those on the left if you don't generalize and attack those on the right.

But you're not a Republican. Look at the Republican party. Its been decades since they stood for smaller government and the only "problem" they seem intent on solving is how to make the rich even richer. They are in no way fiscal conservative. And if you don't agree with their social platform, what is there for you?

You could call yourself a Libertarian and be pretty close.

I was making fun of all the spend trillions on war, religion in schools, evangelicals who represent the modern Republican party but call themselves "independents" or "libertarians." Thinking of Glenn Beck, here.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: Phokus
Lets be honest, the only reason government fails in America is because we have republicans... Europe doesn't have to deal with that and their standard of living is great and their people are happy.

ROTFLMAO!:laugh:

That's GOT to be Satire! Surely nobody is quite that ignorant.......

Yeah right, either we get shitty republican legislation when republicans are in power or we have democrats who have to 'compromise' with republicans. If it weren't for the GOP, we'd have a much better country.

I'd laugh at that stupidity if I knew you didnt actually believe it. In this case I weep somebody is so fucking dumb to believe such a thing.

Europe, where their middle class have homes smaller than our poor, cant afford to drive a car bigger than a mailbox, and pay more for items we take for granted. Nice place to visit, wouldnt want to live there unless I was loaded.

At least they don't die there because they aren't loaded in order to pay for their medical bills.

There are many many stories about people dying waiting for treatment in Europe. Go look at Britains cancer survival rate compare to the United States.

Pretty similar, IIRC. And I'd be interested to see how those rates are computed. It might be an apples/oranges comparison like the infant mortality rate.

Example: My grandfather had prostate cancer, but he died from a stroke. Would he be called a cancer survivor because it didn't kill him?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Pretty similar, IIRC. And I'd be interested to see how those rates are computed. It might be an apples/oranges comparison like the infant mortality rate.

Example: My grandfather had prostate cancer, but he died from a stroke. Would he be called a cancer survivor because it didn't kill him?

They arent similar. And I'd assume your granfather wouldnt be counted due to dying from a different illness all together and didnt survive cancer, unless it went into remission.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Pretty similar, IIRC. And I'd be interested to see how those rates are computed. It might be an apples/oranges comparison like the infant mortality rate.

Example: My grandfather had prostate cancer, but he died from a stroke. Would he be called a cancer survivor because it didn't kill him?

They arent similar. And I'd assume your granfather wouldnt be counted due to dying from a different illness all together and didnt survive cancer, unless it went into remission.

I'd still like to see how the studies are done. I think we're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Craig types more without saying anything than anybody I've ever encountered.

Hard to read and comprehend with your eyes closed.. which coincidentally, is exactly what he wrote about.

You just said you should sit back and let the democrats fail.. so why aren't you and your fellow wackos willing to actually follow through?

I'm not a Republican, fuckstick.

No one's a Republican anymore. Who wants to be on the sinking ship? What is the new term for Republican? Tea bagger? Libertarian? Independent?

Whatever the name for shit, it still stinks.

I am proud to be a Republican. At the core of things I am all for a smaller national government, and solving things at a local level. I am absolutely a fiscal conservative. Its those pesky social values where I do not agree with the party.

I won't generalize and attack all those on the left if you don't generalize and attack those on the right.

But you're not a Republican. Look at the Republican party. Its been decades since they stood for smaller government and the only "problem" they seem intent on solving is how to make the rich even richer. They are in no way fiscal conservative. And if you don't agree with their social platform, what is there for you?

You could call yourself a Libertarian and be pretty close.

I was making fun of all the spend trillions on war, religion in schools, evangelicals who represent the modern Republican party but call themselves "independents" or "libertarians." Thinking of Glenn Beck, here.

I consider myself a republican. A lot of the reason the republican party hasn't stood for a smaller government is because of the "war on terror"... While I don't like it, I think in these times for national defense, having a somewhat bigger government is necessary.

Unlike democrats, I am however opposed to bigger governments for social reason -- e.g., bailouts, Tsars, etc. We don't need governments to tell us what to do socially. We need them to be strong enough to protect us, but not tell us what we can and can't drive.

So yes, republicans haven't been standing for smaller governments. There is a reason though and considering the alternatives, I would rather governments are big enough to protect us.. not big enough to tell us how to drive.. what car manufactures should exist, what companies they should throw money at.. or what unions can suck at the teat of the American people.

So yes, smaller government.. less taxes... but not to the extent that the government can't efficiently protect its citizens.. In general, these are the reasons why republicans haven't been promoting too small a government.. I understand it. What I don't understand is throwing billions of $$ social programs that do nothing and enlarging governments to tell us how to live our lives -- . how to heat our homes.. how much to eat (via taxes).. etc.. taking more taxes to create their version of their liberal utopia.

 

[OCGuy]

We could go back on forth on who is a "Republican" and who is a "Democrat." The fact is, all we do is latch on to the party that most closely fits our views, because that is all we really have.

I would be seen as "Republican" because of my views on immigration, national defense, and social programs. I would be seen as "Democrat" on my stance on drug policy, religion, and civil rights.

There are also people here that are so far Left, they really arent Democrats. They probably cringe every time Obama kills Pakistanis, and every time we step up operations in Afghanistan. However, they have to defend and push Obama because he is better than a Republican in office.

It is really more about who we are trying to keep out of power, than who we are trying to put in power.